Ruchi Singhal (Kum.) and Another vs Chandrika Prasad and Others

Mahesh Chandra Sharma, J.—Since these two misc. appeals relate to common award dated 10th January, 2006 passed by Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur and Special Court (Essential Commodities Act) Jaipur in MACT cases Nos. 28/2004 and 24/2008, they are being disposed by this common judgment. The facts have been set out in the impugned judgment and, hence, I am not repeating the same here except wherever necessary.

Facts in brief are that on 18th November, 2001, Kumari Ruchi Singhal and Kumar Suchi Singhal, alongwith other family members were going from Ajmer towards Jaipur by Car No. RJ 14 5 C 2132. At about 8.10 a.m. when this car reached near Padasoli, a truck No. UP 78 N 9771 being driven rashly and negligently and with excessive speed by its driver respondent No. 1 came from opposite direction and by violating the traffic rules and by coming on the wrong side hit the car. Because of the hit three persons died and claimants sustained serious injuries.

The respondent No. 1 the driver and respondent No. 2 the owner of the truck initially filed their reply to the claim petitions but later on no one appeared on their behalf and ex-parte proceedings were drawn against them. The respondent No. 3 Insurance Company of the truck contested the claim and filed its reply. The other claim petitions and the claim petitions filed by the appellants were consolidated and have been decided by the award dated 10th January, 2006.

The appellants have filed these two appeals for enhancing the compensation awarded by the MACT. The Insurance Company has not filed any cross objections and, hence, the other findings of the MACT in the common award dated 10th January, 2006 stand confirmed except the award of compensation, as the appellants prayed for enhancing the same by filing these two appeals. It may also be mentioned that in the common award dated 10th January, 2006 in claim case No. 26/2004, the claimants filed appeal and the same was disposed by the order of this Court dated 18th September, 2007 passed in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 3256/2005. Now I may take up the appeals filed by the appellants one by one.

SBCMA No. 1978/2006

The learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the MACT has manifestly erred in awarding a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of permanent disablement, Rs. 1,53/345/- for medicines and Rs. 36,000/- for loss of six months income. The learned Counsel has argued that it was proved by unrebutted evidence that the claimant-appellant was student. She had completed CA Foundation course and was doing MBA Course besides it she also used to earn about Rs. 6,000/- month. She remained admitted in Neuro Surgery department of SMS Hospital, Jaipur from 18th November, 2001 to 23rd November, 2001. After that she remained admitted in Tongya Hospital from 23rd November, 2001 to 21st December, 2001. Even after discharge from the hospital her treatment remained continued at home for quite a long period. During the prolonged treatment about a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- were spent under different heads. In these circumstances the learned Counsel argued that the compensation awarded should be increased. He has placed reliance on Yadav Kumar v. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr., 2010 (2) WLC (SC) Civil 695 : MACD 2010 (SC) 217 and Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar and Anr., MACD 2011 (SC) 33 : 2011 (1) T.A.C. 785.

The MACT for the claim case of Kumari Ruchi Singhal while deciding issue No. 4, observed as under :

I have gone through the findings recorded by the MACT and the relevant documents enclosed with the record. The disability certificate Ext. 30 has been enclosed showing 62.5% disability of Jaipuria Hospital. Photostat copies of discharge certificates of SMS Hospital and Tongya Hospital have been enclosed as document Annexures 31 and 32. The medical expenses bills have not been enclosed with the record. The MACT must have looked into the expenses bills etc. enclosed with other files. The findings recorded by the MACT are just and proper. The MACT has awarded Rs. 1,00,000/- for permanent disability and plains etc. and Rs. 1,53,345/- for medical expenses and Rs. 36,000/- have been awarded for loss of income for six months. The findings recorded by the MACT are just and proper. There is no good ground for increasing any compensation on any head. The finding of the MACT for granting compensation in the amount of Rs. 2,89,345/- to appellant Ruchi is just and proper. The appeal for enhancing or giving any further compensation deserves to be rejected.

SBCMA No. 2007/2006

The learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the MACT has manifestly erred in awarding a sum of Rs. 15,000/- on account of permanent disablement, and Rs. 10,000/- for medicines total Rs. 25,000/-. The learned Counsel has argued that it was proved by unrebutted evidence that the claimant appellant was student. She remained admitted in SMS Hospital, Jaipur from 22nd November, 2001 to 24th November, 2001 and operated on 23rd November, 2001. After that she remained admitted in Jyoti Hospital from 29th December, 2001 to 30th December, 2001 Even after discharge from the hospital her treatment remained continued at home for quite a long period. During the prolonged treatment about a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- were spent under different heads. In these circumstances the learned Counsel argued that the compensation awarded should be increased. He has placed reliance on Yadav Kumar v. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr., MACD 2010 (SC) 217 : 2010 (4) T.A.C. 10 (S.C.) and Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar and Anr., MACD 2011 (SC) 33 : 2011 (1) T.A.C. 785 (S.C.).

The MACT for the claim case of Kumari Suchi Singhal while deciding issue No. 4, observed as under :

I have gone through the findings recorded by the MACT. The findings recorded by the MACT are just and proper. The MACT has awarded Rs. 15,000/- for permanent disability and pains etc. and Rs. 10,000/- for medical expenses. For keeping tutor for study purposes no evidence has been produced and hence no such amount was granted by the MACT. The findings recorded by the MACT are just and proper. There is no good ground for increasing compensation on any head. The finding of the MACT for granting compensation in the amount of Rs. 25,000/- to appellant Suchi is just and proper. The appeal for enhancing or giving any further compensation deserves to be rejected. In view of the above the misc. Appeal Nos. 1978/2006 and 2007/2006 filed by claimant appellants for enhancement of compensation in claim case Nos. 24/2004 and 28/2004 against the award dated 10th January, 2006 passed by the Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur and Special Court (Essential Commodities Act) Jaipur being devoid of merit stand rejected. The award stands confirmed. The parties are directed to bear their own costs.